Showing posts with label Iraq war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq war. Show all posts

Thursday, January 16, 2014

More atrocities by US forces in Iraq uncovered...Abu Ghraib 2.0 in Fallujah

[Editor`s note: And they dare called Saddam the 'Butcher of Baghdad?' Who has killed more Iraqis, the US or Saddam, and has subjected the Iraqis to cruel and inhumane punishment? If Saddam was truly guilty, why put him through a kangaroo court and hang like a dog for trumped-up charges for responsding to a presidential assassination. Where were the decades of human torture he stood blindingly accused of? The great country of the Tigris and Euphrates has been left in utter shambles, not reminiscent of its past glory and before the war...yet countless Iraqis continue to die like cannon fodder with no end in sight...who is ULTIMATELY responsible and will face justice? Unfortunately, these are things we will never understand till the good Lord above judges...]

Abu Ghraib 2.0? Horrifying images of US Marines burning Iraqis prompt military investigation
RT NEWS
January 15, 2014


[WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT BELOW]


The picture that defined the Abu Ghraib
prisoner torture, credit: wikipedia
The Pentagon confirmed early Wednesday that a formal investigation has been launched after photographs began to surface purportedly showing US troops burning the remains of dead Iraqis.

Those images were published Wednesday morning by website TMZ, which claims to have recently come into possession of 41 photos in all that they believe to have been taken in Fallujah sometime in 2004 amid the US-led Iraq occupation.

The website has only published eight of the images, including ones in which men appearing to be US Marines are seen dousing the dead with chemicals and setting them ablaze. TMZ is withholding the majority of the photographs, however, because many are simply “too gruesome,” they claim, including one alleged to be in their possession showing a human body being devoured by dogs and another covered in flies.

Among the photographs that were published by TMZ is one in which a man in full military garb is shown holding his high-powered firearm to what appears to be the charred remains of a human skull.

According to the website, the photographs were turned over to the US Department of Defense last week. TMZ says that Col. Steve Warren, the Pentagon’s director of press operations, told them the images do seem to show US servicemen engaged in unlawful activity.

Now as authorities begin their probe, the latest leak may uncover the most embarrassing incident of its kind to plague the US military since images taken inside America's now infamous Abu Ghraib prison were published nearly 10 years ago.

When those photographs were first published almost a decade ago, images showed the world horrific instances of abuse and torture that even today remains one of the biggest scars to mar the Iraq War and occupation during its nearly nine-year-long duration. Eleven US troops were convicted for their conduct there.

With regard to the latest leaked images, Col. Warren also confirmed the existence of an investigation to Stars & Stripes, a news outlet carried out as a service of the US Defense Media Activity. That website is refusing to publish the images until more information about them develops.

Warren informed Stars & Stripes that the US Marine Corps is conducting the military’s probe, and Capt. Richard Ulsh, communications director for the Marine Corps, told the Pentagon-affiliated paper that an investigation has indeed been launched to examine the veracity of the photographs, the circumstances involved and possibly the identity of the alleged servicemen caught on film.

“The findings from this investigation will determine whether we are able to move forward with any investigation into possible wrongdoing,” Capt. Ulsh said.

As far as Pentagon spokesman Warren is concerned, though, the Defense Department can’t at this time say for certain that the alleged troops seen in the images engaged in any conduct that without a doubt fails to comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“On the burning, you know, it’s hard to tell [whether it’s a violation of the UCMJ],” he told Stars & Stripes. “While we don’t routinely burn human remains, there are circumstances when that might be necessary for hygiene, health — things like that.”

Mishandling human remains is a violation of the UCMJ, however, and the results of the just-launched Marine Corps investigation may soon call for a court-martial to convene in order to prosecute anyone thought to be affiliated with unlawful activity uncovered by TMZ.

"The actions that are depicted in these photos are not in any way representative of the honorable, professional service of the two-and-a-half million service members who went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last decade,” Col. Warren told TMZ.

Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Ty Balzer echoed Warren’s remarks when reached for comment by the New York Daily News early Wednesday.

“I can’t stress that enough,” Capt. Balzer said. “Service members go over there and follow the rules, they really do.”

Even taking into consideration the Abu Ghraib incident, the most recent embarrassment suffered by the military is hardly the first as of late. In January 2012, video footage made its way to the web showing US troops urinating on the bodies of what appeared to be slain Afghans, and several months later the Los Angeles Times published photographs depicting US soldiers posing with the gory remains of several Afghan suicide bombers.

A spokesperson at the Pentagon press office’s Iraq desk did not immediately return RT’s request for a comment on TMZ’s alleged Fallujah images.



Horrific: Shocking images depicting U.S. soldiers burning the bodies of what appear to be Iraqi insurgents, have emerged today
Horrific: Shocking images depicting U.S. soldiers burning the bodies of what appear to be Iraqi insurgents, have emerged today
Burning: The explosive photographs, reportedly taken in Fallujah in 2004, appear to show U.S. soldier pouring gasoline on the bodies of Iraqi insurgents
Burning: The explosive photographs, reportedly taken in Fallujah in 2004, appear to show U.S. soldier pouring gasoline on the bodies of Iraqi insurgents
Grim: Many of the 41 gag-inducing shots are just too grisly to publish
Grim: Many of the 41 gag-inducing shots are just too grisly to publish
probe: The gruesome images have already sparked a Marine Corps investigation
probe: The gruesome images have already sparked a Marine Corps investigation
Charred: Two more pictures capture the horrifically charred bodies
Charred: Two more pictures capture the horrifically charred bodies
Pentagon: The sick snaps were exclusively obtained by TMZ, who turned them over to the Pentagon last week, triggering the probe
Pentagon: The sick snaps were exclusively obtained by TMZ, who turned them over to the Pentagon last week, triggering the probe
Posing: Other horrific pictures show a Marine squatting next to a skull to pose for the camera. His U.S. military uniform is clear, on his face he wears a wide grin and he is pointing his gun at the skeleton
Posing: Other horrific pictures show a Marine squatting next to a skull to pose for the camera. His U.S. military uniform is clear, on his face he wears a wide grin and he is pointing his gun at the skeleton
Pickpocket: The Department of Defense said the pictures appear to show U.S. soldiers in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The code outlines that it is a crime to mishandle remains
Pickpocket: The Department of Defense said the pictures appear to show U.S. soldiers in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The code outlines that it is a crime to mishandle remains
Read more:
Home Pics of Marines Burning Bodies Trigger U.S. Military Investigation [PHOTOS] Iraqi Death Scene Pics of Marines Burning Bodies Trigger U.S. Military Investigation [PHOTOS]

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Déjà vu again in Syria? Flashback to Gaddafi and Saddam who gave up weapons before being attacked and toppled

Is Assad Being Tricked Into Sacrificing Syria?
Or is the plan to relinquish chemical weapons a geopolitical master stroke?

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 10, 2013

Is President Bashar Al-Assad being tricked into creating circumstances that will hand the Obama White House a justification for war, or is the plan for Syria’s chemical weapons to be destroyed a geopolitical master stroke that will avert a regional conflict?

Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Muallem today formally accepted a Russian proposal – first mooted by John Kerry – for Syria to hand its chemical arsenal over to international control in a bid to avoid a US military attack.

Many see the development as a stunning example of Russia once again outmaneuvering the United States, seizing on an apparent gaffe by Kerry in order to pull the rug out from underneath Washington and derail Obama’s pretext for war.

However, could the precondition of Syria destroying its chemical weapons actually be used to rescue a congressional vote that had looked doomed to fail?

[...]

In December 2003, Colonel Gaddafi agreed to give up his weapons of mass destruction and allow unimpeded inspections. This didn’t stop the Obama administration coming to the aid of Al-Qaeda-linked rebels eight years later to destroy Libya and leave it in the hands of brutal warlords.

Similarly, Saddam Hussein agreed to give UN weapons inspectors unfettered access in a desperate bid to prevent the US invasion of Iraq, but the move was completely futile because, as in the case of Syria, the decision to attack had already been made...

[Click here to read the full article]


Related info:
--Intercepts caught Assad rejecting requests to use chemical weapons, German paper says
--US Prepares 60,000 Ground Troops For Post-Assad Syria

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Arm yourself with the truth - The Long History of Lies about Iran

credit: infowars
'If the lies about Iraq taught us anything, it is that we must pay attention to the massive campaign of lies about Iran'

By Muhammad Sahimi
ANTIWAR
April 3, 2012

There was a flood of articles and analyses on the tenth anniversary of invasion of Iraq on March 19, most of which focused on the lies, exaggerations, and half-truths that the War Party told the American people and the world in the run up to the war. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq have died as a result of the lies. Tens of thousands of people have also died as a result of the NATO aggression against Libya, as well as the war in Syria that is backed by the United States and its allies in that region, namely, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, with the carnage still continuing with no end in sight.

If the lies about Iraq have taught us anything, it is that we must pay due attention to the massive campaign of disinformation and lies that has been waged against Iran for over three decades, in order to “justify” a war with that nation. The campaign began with the hostage crisis after the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was overrun by Islamic leftist students on November 4, 1979, and is still continuing. There are still disinformation and one-sided stories about the hostage crisis, the latest of which is the film Argo. The biggest lie about Iran, which has been perpetuated since at least 1984, is that Iran is only a few months or a year or two away from a nuclear bomb, which has not materialized after nearly 30 years.

The campaign is separate from the secret war that has been waged on Iran for at least a decade, consisting of assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, killing of many innocent people by terrorist groups, such as the Jundallah, and waging a cyberspace war against Iran’s nuclear facilities that even a recent NATO study recognized as being tantamount to the use of force and illegal. The campaign of lies about Iran is much deeper and broader than the Iraq campaign, far better organized, and much better funded, with the funding provided by not just the American administrations – such as $400 million provided by the GW Bush administration for destabilizing the Iranian regime – but also the Israel lobby and the War Party. The campaign also includes demonization of Iran by Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has likened Iran to the Nazi regime, our era to 1938, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, an outrageous claim that has been criticized even in certain pro-Israel circles.

Stephen Walt has already listed top ten media failures about Iran. Here is a list of some of the most outrageous lies about Iran, but the list is by no means complete.

1981: One of the most brazen lies is that the U.S. does not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs. From the CIA coup of 1953 that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh and installing and supporting the dictatorship of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for 25 years, to the aforementioned Bush budget for destabilizing Iran, the U.S. has always tried to interfere in Iran. On January 19, 1981, Iran and the U.S. signed the Algiers Accord to end the hostage crisis. In the Accord the U.S. promised that “it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs,” and that it will remove all of its sanctions against Iran. Not delivering on legally-binding promises is by itself a terrible lie.

1984: Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that West German intelligence believed that Iran could have a nuclear bomb within two years. Twenty-nine years later, that bomb has not been produced.

1988: An Iranian passenger airliner carrying 290 people was shot down over the Persian Gulf by the cruiser USS Vicennes, killing all the passengers and crew, including 56 children. To cover up the crime, the U.S. lied twice. It claimed that its cruiser was in the international waters, and that the airliners had been mistaken with a jet fighter. The International Civil Aviation Organization put the cruiser in Iran’s territorial waters, and Admiral William J. Crowe, then Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, also admitted later that the cruiser was in Iran’s territorial water. Newsweek magazine accused the U.S. of a “sea of lies” about mistaking a passenger airliner with a fighter jet.

1996: The Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed, killing 19 U.S. servicemen. For years the U.S. accused Iran of sponsoring the terrorist attack. But, in his bookThe Secret History of Al-QaedaAbdel Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of the London-based Al Quds Al Arabi, detailed the involvement of Al-Qaeda in the attack. The 9/11 Commission reported that Osama Bin Laden was seen being congratulated on the day of the bombing. William Perry, who was Defense Secretary at that time, said in 2007 that he believes al-Qaeda, rather than Iran, was behind the attack, and Saudi Arabia’s interior minister Prince Nayef absolved Iran of any role in the attack.

1998: In its indictment of Bin Laden, the U.S. declared that Al-Qaeda, “forged alliances . . . with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group [the Lebanese] Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies.” The allegation of a working relation between Iran and Al-Qaeda was repeated by Steven Emerson and the infamous Islamophobe Daniel Pipes in May 2001.

2001: There were allegations that Iran played a role in the September 11 terrorist attacks. But, the fact is that the Sunni/Salafi Al-Qaeda hates the Shiite Iran, and aside from rabid anti-Iran figures, such as Kenneth Timmerman and Pipes, no one believes that Iran had any role in the terrorist attacks. Then Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was one of the first heads of state to send a message of condolences to the American people. Even George W. Bush and his then Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said that, “There was no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of September 11,” and Western intelligence agencies believe that there is zero chance of Iran helping Al-Qaeda to stage the terrorist attacks. In fact, in 2003 Iran offered to exchange members of Bin Laden family, who had fled to Iran after the U.S. attacked that nation in the fall of 2001, with the leadership of the Mojahedin-e Khalgh (MEK), an Iranian dissident cult who were in Iraq at that time, but the U.S. rejected the offer because the Pentagon wanted to train and use the MEK as a pressure group against Iran.

2002: In January Israel seized a cargo ship, Karine A, and alleged that it was carrying weapons for the Palestinian Authority with Iran’s help, an allegation that was supported by Colin Powell, then Secretary of State. In addition to the fact that Israel changed its history several times, there were also many holes in the official statements and allegations. After sometime, the allegations faded away and were never mentioned again.

2002: George Bush made the moronic declaration about the “axis of evil,” making Iran a charter member of the axis, of which Iran’s archenemy Saddam Hussein and his regime were also member. The absurdity and sheer magnitude of the lie about an alliance between Iran and Hussein’s regime was mind boggling. It was meant to demonize Iran and Iranians.

2005: Shortly after Ahmadinejad was elected Iran’s President in June, it was alleged that he had taken part in the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As I discussed elsewhere, Ahmadinejad had in fact been opposed to the takeover.

2005: In October it was claimed by the War Party and the Israel lobby, and aided by the U.S. mainstream media, that Ahmadinejad has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map.” This was used by the Party and Lobby to push for military attacks on Iran. But, it was shown by many (see here and here, for example) that it was simply a mistranslation of what he had really said. In 2011 even Dan Meridor, Israel’s minister of intelligence and atomic energy, acknowledged that Ahmadinejad never uttered those infamous words. But, the lie is still repeated.

2006: In May the National Post of Canada published an article by Amir Taheri, an exiled Iranian “journalist” who is close to the necons, claiming that the Iranian parliament approved a law that “envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct color schemes to make them identifiable in public,” hence likening it to the special dress code for Jews in the Nazi regime. The National Post even stated that Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, had said the report to be “absolutely true,” and that Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Center had also confirmed it (though Hier denied it later on). It turned out that the story was a pure fabrication by Taheri, who has a long track record of reporting fictions as facts. Even the National Post retracted the story and apologized for publishing it.

2006: The Rupert Murdoch-owned Sunday Times of London alleged that Iran had tried to secretly import uranium from Congo, similar to George W. Bush’s infamous sixteen words, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” which turned out to be a lie. The report turned out to be a fabrication.

2006: Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the then chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued a report in August that claimed, “Iran has conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program for nearly two decades in violation of its IAEA safeguards agreement, and despite its claim to the contrary, Iran is seeking nuclear weapons,” an outrageous lie that prompted the IAEA to send a letter to Hoekstra, rebuking the report, calling it dishonest.

2006: The Daily Telegraph claimed that Iran had tried to get uranium from Somalia’s Islamic forces, another sheer fabrication.

2007: In his infamous diatribes, “The Case for Bombing Iran,” Norman Podhoretz, the Godfather of the Israel lobby, claimed that when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said at one time that, “I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world,” he had meant Israel. This was sheer lie; the Ayatollah had never uttered the words. It was another fabrication by Taheri.

2007: In the same article Podhoretz also claimed that in 2001 former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani had said, “A day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession … application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.” This was another lie. I happened to be in Tehran, watching Rafsanjani on Iranian television when he uttered the alleged words. What Rafsanjani said was, “There will never be a nuclear exchange between Israel and the Islamic world, because a day will come when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession….” In other words, Rafsanjani was saying that Israel is wise enough not to want a nuclear war with Muslims, although even this correct observation of his was roundly criticized by Iran’s reformists and democratic groups.

2007: In another attempt to use Hollywood for demonizing Iran, the film 300, pitting Persians (Iranians) versus the Greeks, was produced, which was criticized for its clear anti-Persian stance, and making parallels between the ancient war and the present standoff.

2007: Senators Jon Kyle and Joseph Lieberman tried to declare the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) of Iran a terrorist organization. Then Senator Chuck Hagel, the current Defense Secretary, voted against it, saying it is unusual – I say an absurd lie – to declare the regular armed forces of a country a terrorist organization.

2008: The Daily Telegraph claimed that there were “fresh signs” that Iran had renewed work on developing nuclear weapons, which was again a fabrication. Two days later, the paper alleged that the IAEA could not account for 50-60 tons of uranium, which was supposed to be in Isfahan, where “Iran enriches its uranium.” Not only was the claim false, prompting the IAEA to reject theallegations, it was also erroneous in that there is no uranium enrichment site in Isfahan.

2009: The Times of London published a document – later on proved to be forged – that supposedly revealed “a four-year plan [by Iran] to test a neutron initiator [for triggering a nuclear reaction in the bomb." On the same day, the Times’ reporter Catherine Phillips quoted Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, saying brazenly, "Is this the smoking gun? That's the question people should be asking. It looks like the smoking gun. This is smoking uranium."
2010: One of the lies about Iran, perpetuated by successive U.S. administrations, is that the United Nations Security Council and the “international community” – which in reality means the governments of the U.S., Britain, France, and Germany – are “united” against Iran. In reality, two permanent members of the Security Council, China and Russia, and a large number of two important international organizations, namely, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Conference of Islamic Countries do not support the unilateral sanctions against Iran by the U.S. and its allies, nor do they support the constant threats made against Iran. In 2010, when the U.S. began ratcheting up it sanctions, the lie was made more frequently than ever.

2011: Another anti-Iran film, Iranium, was produced by the same Islamophobe group that had produced the films “Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West” and “The Third Jihad.” Iranium was replete with exaggerations and half-truths, if not outright lies, promoted military attacks on Iran, and was criticized.

2012: Too many false claims on Iran’s nuclear program were reported by George Jahn of the Associated Press, and others. Steven Erlanger, a New York Times reporter, was caught lying about Iran’s nuclear program.

2013: There have already been many hysteric warnings by Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) - also known as Institute for Scary Iranian Stories - and its President David Albright, including a recent one in the Wall Street Journal on stopping an “undetectable Iranian [nuclear] bomb,” a totally absurd notion that anyone with the knowledge that Iran’s uranium enrichment program is under full inspection and monitoring of the IAEA knows is untrue.

2013Edward Jay Epstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Iran can buy nuclear bombs from North Korea “overnight,” another totally absurd notion. The Israelis have also not been silent. They now claim that Iran can make a nuclear bomb in 4-6 months, another dire “prediction.” This is at least “better” than the claim in the Washington Post in 2011 that Iran could produce the bomb in 62 days.

The above list is by no means complete, but it demonstrates clearly that the campaign of lies and exaggerations about Iran has been moving forward with full speed for over three decades. The campaign has nothing to do with the nature of the Iranian regime, which does violate the rights of it citizens, though that is an internal matter for the Iranians, but has everything to do with what General James Mattis, the U.S. Central Command commander said recently, namely, bringing Iran to its knees and removing it as a regional power that can resist the hegemonic will of the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

The Iraq War legacy: 10 years on...behold the fruit of 'American Success'

Iraq war: Ever more shocked, never yet awed
PressTV
March 18, 2013



At 10 years since the launch of Operation Iraqi Liberation (to use the original name with the appropriate acronym, OIL) and over 22 years since Operation Desert Storm, there is little evidence that any significant number of people in the United States have a realistic idea of what our government has done to the people of Iraq, or of how these actions compare to other horrors of world history.

A majority of Americans believe the war since 2003 has hurt the United States but benefitted Iraq. A plurality of Americans believe not only that Iraqis should be grateful, but that Iraqis are in fact grateful.

A number of US academics have advanced the dubious claim that war making is declining around the world. Misinterpreting what has happened in Iraq is central to their argument. As documented in the full report, by the most scientifically respected measures available, Iraq lost 1.4 million lives as a result of OIL, saw 4.2 million additional people injured, and 4.5 million people become refugees. The 1.4 million dead was 5% of the population.

That compares to 2.5% lost in the US Civil War, or 3 to 4% in Japan in World War II, 1% in France and Italy in World War II, less than 1% in the U.K. and 0.3% in the United States in World War II. The 1.4 million dead is higher as an absolute number as well as a percentage of population than these other horrific losses. US deaths in Iraq since 2003 have been 0.3% of the dead, even if they’ve taken up the vast majority of the news coverage, preventing US news consumers from understanding the extent of Iraqi suffering.

In a very American parallel, the US government has only been willing to value the life of an Iraqi at that same 0.3% of the financial value it assigns to the life of a US citizen.

The 2003 invasion included 29,200 airstrikes, followed by another 3,900 over the next eight years. The US military targeted civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances. It also made use of what some might call “weapons of mass destruction,” using cluster bombs, white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new kind of napalm in densely settled urban areas.

Birth defects, cancer rates, and infant mortality are through the roof. Water supplies, sewage treatment plants, hospitals, bridges, and electricity supplies have been devastated, and not repaired. Healthcare and nutrition and education are nothing like they were before the war. And we should remember that healthcare and nutrition had already deteriorated during years of economic warfare waged through the most comprehensive economic sanctions ever imposed in modern history.

Money spent by the United States to “reconstruct” Iraq was always less than 10% of what was being spent adding to the damage, and most of it was never actually put to any useful purpose. At least a third was spent on “security,” while much of the rest was spent on corruption in the US military and its contractors.

The educated who might have best helped rebuild Iraq fled the country. Iraq had the best universities in Western Asia in the early 1990s, and now leads in illiteracy, with the population of teachers in Baghdad reduced by 80%.

For years, the occupying forces broke the society of Iraq down, encouraging ethnic and sectarian division and violence, resulting in a segregated country and the repression of rights that Iraqis used to enjoy even under Saddam Hussein’s brutal police state.

While the dramatic escalation of violence that for several years was predicted would accompany any US withdrawal did not materialize, Iraq is not at peace. The war destabilized Iraq internally, created regional tensions, and -- of course - generated widespread resentment for the United States. That was the opposite result of the stated one of making the United States safer.

If the United States had taken five trillion dollars, and - instead of spending it destroying Iraq - had chosen to do good with it, at home or abroad, just imagine the possibilities. The United Nations thinks $30 billion a year would end world hunger. For $5 trillion, why not end world hunger for 167 years? The lives not saved are even more than the lives taken away by war spending.

A sanitized version of the war and how it started is now in many of our school text books. It is not too late for us to correct the record, or to make reparations. We can better work for an actual reduction in war making and the prevention of new wars if we accurately understand what past wars have involved.

DS/HSN/SL

CIA/MI6 knew the truth on the status of Iraq WMDs but ignored and hidden

credit: almanar
British, U.S. spies ignored intelligence before Iraq invasion
PressTV
March 18, 2013

Britain and U.S. spying agencies had ignored intelligence before invasion of Iraq that the country had no active weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), it has been revealed.

MI6 and CIA had been told through secret channels by Saddam’s foreign minister and his spy chief that Iraq had no WMDs, media reports said.

This is while that former Prime Minister Tony Blair told parliament in the run-up to the war that intelligence showed Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programme was "active", "growing" and "up and running".

According to a special Panorama programme in the BBC, British and U.S. spying agencies were informed by top sources months before the invasion that Iraq had no active WMD programme, and that the information was not passed to subsequent inquiries.

The programme explains how Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, told the CIA's station chief in Paris at the time, Bill Murray, through an intermediary that Iraq had "virtually nothing" in terms of WMD.

Meanwhile, Panorama confirms that three months before the war an MI6 officer met Iraq's head of intelligence, Tahir Habbush al-Tikriti, who also said that Saddam had no active WMDs.

The meeting in the Jordanian capital, Amman, took place days before the British regime published its now widely discredited Iraqi weapons dossier in September 2002.

Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary who led an inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, tells the programme that he was not told about Sabri's comments, and that he should have been.

Butler says of the use of intelligence: "There were ways in which people were misled or misled themselves at all stages."

When it was suggested to him that the body that probably felt most misled of all was the British public, Butler replied: "Yes, I think they're, they're, they got every reason think that."

MOL/JR/HE

Dick Cheney: one of the behind-the-scenes architect of Iraq War unapologetic/unremorseful of role in disastrous war & legacy

'I'd do it again in a minute': Dick Cheney unapologetic about War in Iraq 10 years on and defends use of torture to prevent terror
By KATIE DAVIES
DAILYMAIL
March 15, 2013

Former Vice President Dick Cheney says he has no regrets about the War in Iraq and would do it again 'in a minute' in a new documentary which airs tonight - days before the 10th anniversary of the U.S. led invasion.

In the film entitled The World According to Dick Cheney, Cheney says he 'feels good about' the U.S. led action which has cost the lives of 4,488 U.S. armed service members and 134,000 Iraqi civilians. He also defends the use of torture in the wake of 9/11 including the controversial technique of simulated drowning or water-boarding in the Showtime film.

No regrets: Cheney, left, pictured while serving as Vice President, said he would do the same again in a minute
No regrets: Cheney, left, pictured while serving as Vice President, said he would do the same again in a minute

The film marks ten years since the invasion, which has cost U.S. taxpayers $2.2 trillion to date, according to recent estimates by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

The Republican is interviewed by R.J. Cutler in his film, which also interviews Cheney supporters and detractors including close friend and political ally former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield and former aide David Addington.

'I did what I did,' he says. 'It’s all on the public record, and I feel very good about it. If I had it to do over again, I’d do it in a minute.' He also says he is unmoved by critics of his ongoing pro-Iraq war stance adding: 'I don’t lay awake at night thinking, ‘Gee, what are they going to say about me now?’ He adds: 'I don't spend a lot of time thinking about my faults'.

In Iraq: The former Vice President, pictured here in Iraq, said he felt good about the decisions he made
In Iraq: The former Vice President, pictured here in Iraq, said he felt good about the decisions he made

Speaking about the post 911 War on Terror he repeats this steadfast confidence in the techniques used by the intelligence services and laws introduced by the Bush administration.
'It was a wartime situation, and it does require tough programs and policies if you're going to be successful,' he said. 'It was more important to be successful than it was to be loved.'
He also defends water-boarding and other techniques used by intelligence services to retract information. 'Tell me what terrorist attack you would have let go forward because you didn't want to be a mean and nasty fellow,' he says.

'Are you going to trade the lives of a number of people because you want to preserve your honor?'

'I don't run around thinking, 'Gee, I wish we had done this or wish we had done that.' The world is as you find it, and you've got to deal with that,' he says.

'You get one shot. You don't get do-overs. So you don't spend a lot of time thinking about it.'
It explores how Cheney came to wield considerable influence over President Bush and how he became one of the most powerful vice presidents in American history. It also touches on his early political career in Congress, rise to prominence in the Ford administration and stint out of politics as CEO of Halliburton.

The two-hour documentary will be aired on Showtime. It premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. Cutler is well-known for previous documentaries including The War Room and The September Issue.

'[Cheney] was certainly very generous with his time and supported the making of this film so I'm grateful to him for that,' Cutler said in an interview with CNN'He believes what he did in his time in office and over his 40 year career was the right thing. He believes his convictions are the right convictions,' Cutler says.

'My politics are beside the point, this is a film that is examining one of the most significant Vice Presidents - I would argue one of the most consequential non presidential political figures this country has ever known.'



Source: CNN

Monday, July 30, 2012

Audit reveals $200 million wasted on Iraqi Police program that the Iraqi themselves DID NOT want

US audit: $200M wasted on Iraqi police training
ASSOCIATED PRESS/NYPOST
Posted: July 30, 2012

BAGHDAD — US auditors have concluded that more than $200 million was wasted on a program to train Iraqi police that Baghdad says is neither needed nor wanted.
The Police Development Program- which was drawn up to be the single largest State Department program in the world - was envisioned as a five-year, multibillion-dollar push to train security forces after the US military left last December. But Iraqi political leaders, anxious to keep their distance from the Americans, were unenthusiastic.

AP
A report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, released Monday, found that the American Embassy in Baghdad never got a written commitment from Iraq to participate. Now, facing what the report called Baghdad's "disinterest" in the project, the embassy is gutting what was supposed to be the centerpiece of ongoing US training efforts in Iraq.

According to the report, the embassy plans to turn over the $108 million Baghdad Police College Annex to Iraqis by the end of the year and will stop training at a $98 million site at the US consulate in the southern city of Basra. Additionally, the number of advisers has been cut by nearly 90 percent - from 350 to 36.

"A major lesson learned from Iraq is that host country buy-in to proposed programs is essential to the long-term success of relief and reconstruction activities. The PDP experience powerfully underscores that point," auditors wrote in a 41-page summary of their inspection. An advance copy was provided to The Associated Press.

Auditors noted that it "has clearly been difficult" for American diplomats to secure a solid commitment from Iraq's government to participate in the training program. Still, the report concluded, "the decision to embark on a major program absent Iraqi buy-in has been costly" and resulted in "a de facto waste."

The findings call into question funding needs at the largest US embassy in the world, as the Obama administration prepares its new spending plan for the 2013 fiscal year that begins Oct 1. While auditors said it's unknown how much the embassy in Baghdad is requesting, additional money for the police program "may not be needed."

Despite years and billions of dollars of training, Iraq's police force remains a vulnerable target for militants. On Sunday, seven police were killed and nine more wounded in bombings and shootings near the former al-Qaida stronghold of Fallujah, about 64 kilometers (40 miles) west of Baghdad. It appeared to be the latest strike by the Sunni insurgency as it seeks to reclaim areas where US troops ousted them...

(click here to read the full article)

Monday, April 2, 2012

Confession of the Iraqi defector who fabricated Iraq`s WMDs

Man whose WMD lies led to 100,000 deaths confesses all
Defector tells how US officials 'sexed up' his fictions to make the case for 2003 invasion

Johnathan Owen
The Independent
April 1, 2012

 A man whose lies helped to make the case for invading Iraq – starting a nine-year war costing more than 100,000 lives and hundreds of billions of pounds – will come clean in his first British television interview tomorrow.
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, photo credit: BBC/Independent

"Curveball", the Iraqi defector who fabricated claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, smiles as he confirms how he made the whole thing up. It was a confidence trick that changed the course of history, with Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi's lies used to justify the Iraq war.

He tries to defend his actions: "My main purpose was to topple the tyrant in Iraq because the longer this dictator remains in power, the more the Iraqi people will suffer from this regime's oppression."

The chemical engineer claimed to have overseen the building of a mobile biological laboratory when he sought political asylum in Germany in 1999. His lies were presented as "facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence" by Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, when making the case for war at the UN Security Council in February 2003.

But Mr Janabi, speaking in a two-part series, Modern Spies, starting tomorrow on BBC2, says none of it was true. When it is put to him "we went to war in Iraq on a lie. And that lie was your lie", he simply replies: "Yes."

US officials "sexed up" Mr Janabi's drawings of mobile biological weapons labs to make them more presentable, admits Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, General Powell's former chief of staff. "I brought the White House team in to do the graphics," he says, adding how "intelligence was being worked to fit around the policy".

As for his former boss: "I don't see any way on this earth that Secretary Powell doesn't feel almost a rage about Curveball and the way he was used in regards to that intelligence."

Another revelation in the series is the real reason why the FBI swooped on Russian spy Anna Chapman in 2010. Top officials feared the glamorous Russian agent wanted to seduce one of US President Barack Obama's inner circle. Frank Figliuzzi, the FBI's head of counterintelligence, reveals how she got "closer and closer to higher and higher ranking leadership... she got close enough to disturb us".

The fear that Chapman would compromise a senior US official in a "honey trap" was a key reason for the arrest and deportation of the Russian spy ring of 10 people, of which she was a part, in 2010. "We were becoming very concerned," he says. "They were getting close enough to a sitting US cabinet member that we thought we could no longer allow this to continue." Mr Figliuzzi refuses to name the individual who was being targeted.

Several British spies also feature in the programme, in the first time that serving intelligence officers have been interviewed on television. In contrast to the US intelligence figures, the British spies are cloaked in darkness, their voices dubbed by actors. BBC veteran reporter Peter Taylor, who worked for a year putting the documentary together, describes them as "ordinary people who are committed to what they do" and "a million miles" from the spies depicted in film. He adds: "What surprised me was the extent to which they work within a civil service bureaucracy. Everything has to be signed off... you've got to have authorisation signed in triplicate."

Would-be agents should abandon any Hollywood fantasies they may have, says Sonya Holt at the CIA recruitment centre. "They think it's more like the movies, that they are going to be jumping out of cars and that everyone carries a weapon... Yes we're collecting intelligence but we don't all drive fast cars. You're going to be writing reports; you're in meetings so it's not always that glamorous image of what you see in the movies."

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Iraqi civilians were killed routinely in Iraq War...Major General in charge says it was "a cost of doing business."

Iraqi civilians were being killed all the time...according to a New York Times reporter who found 400 pages of interrogations along with reams of other classified documents in a junkyard outside Baghdad.

Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for the United States military in Iraq, said that many of the documents remained classified and should have been destroyed. Here is one reason why.

 Maj. Gen. Steve Johnson, the commander of American forces in Anbar, in his own testimony, described it as "a cost of doing business." According to other testimony: "Troops, traumatized by the rising violence and feeling constantly under siege, grew increasingly twitchy, killing more and more civilians in accidental encounters. Others became so desensitized and inured to the killing that they fired on Iraqi civilians deliberately while their fellow soldiers snapped pictures."

Now relate that to the current situation in Afghanistan with the recent spike in civilian deaths and abuse, with the soldiers coming trigger happy, and actually disarmed during a speech for Sec-Def Panetta, all the while shows is a necessary 'cost of doing business.'

Junkyard Gives Up Secret Accounts of Massacre in Iraq
NY Times
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
Published: December 14, 2011


Transcripts of military interviews from the investigation into the Haditha massacre were found at this trailer in a junkyard in Baghdad, which specializes in selling trailers and office supplies left over from American military base closings. Photo credit: Andrea Bruce for The New York Times
BAGHDAD — One by one, the Marines sat down, swore to tell the truth and began to give secret interviews discussing one of the most horrific episodes of America’s time in Iraq: the 2005 massacre by Marines of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha.

The 400 pages of interrogations, once closely guarded as secrets of war, were supposed to have been destroyed as the last American troops prepare to leave Iraq. Instead, they were discovered along with reams of other classified documents, including military maps showing helicopter routes and radar capabilities, by a reporter for The New York Times at a junkyard outside Baghdad. An attendant was burning them as fuel to cook a dinner of smoked carp.

The documents — many marked secret — form part of the military’s internal investigation, and confirm much of what happened at Haditha, a Euphrates River town where Marines killed 24 Iraqis, including a 76-year-old man in a wheelchair, women and children, some just toddlers.

...Haditha became a defining moment of the war, helping cement an enduring Iraqi distrust of the United States and a resentment that not one Marine has been convicted.

But the accounts are just as striking for what they reveal about the extraordinary strains on the soldiers who were assigned here, their frustrations and their Haditha became a defining moment of the war, helping cement an enduring Iraqi distrust of the United States and a resentment that not one Marine has been convicted.

But the accounts are just as striking for what they reveal about the extraordinary strains on the soldiers who were assigned here, their frustrations and their Haditha became a defining moment of the war, helping cement an enduring Iraqi distrust of the United States and a resentment that not one Marine has been convicted.

But the accounts are just as striking for what they reveal about the extraordinary strains on the soldiers who were assigned here, their frustrations and their frequently painful encounters with a population they did not understand. In their own words, the report documents the dehumanizing nature of this war, where Marines came to view 20 dead civilians as not “remarkable,” but as routine...

(click here to read the full article)

Remember Lynndie England at the heart of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: says she will not apologize to the 'enemy'

ABU GHRAIB’S GRASP
8 years later, abuse soldier Lynndie England tells of her anguish – but won’t apologize to ‘enemy’

By M.L. Nestel
The Daily
Monday, March 19, 2012

ImageImage
PHOTO:Brian Zak/The Daily - Lynndie England became the face of America’s shame in the Abu Ghraib scandal eight years ago. England was convicted of abusing Abu Ghraib prisoners.

FORT ASHBY, W.Va. — Eight years before an American soldier shot 16 civilians in Afghanistan, there was another case of tragic military misconduct that ruined lives and threatened to derail a war effort.

Today, the former soldier who became the callous, “thumbs-up” emblem of the Abu Ghraib scandal lives with her parents in rural West Virginia, raising the son of the man who perpetrated the worst of the torture at the Iraqi prison. Things are so rough for her, Lynndie England told The Daily in a wide-ranging interview, that she has trouble finding much reason to feel bad for the detainees she and her colleagues abused.

“Their lives are better. They got the better end of the deal,” England said. “They weren’t innocent. They’re trying to kill us, and you want me to apologize to them? It’s like saying sorry to the enemy.”

The latest atrocity, in which U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales is accused of massacring women and children in Afghanistan villages, is a reminder of the stain Abu Ghraib left on the American military effort in Iraq. England’s lawyer declined to comment on Bales and she didn’t respond to a phone message.

England was front and center in the explosive photographs that depicted physical, sexual and psychological abuse of Iraqi detainees at the prison near Baghdad. The scandal that erupted in 2004 was a disastrous blight on the Iraq war and the George W. Bush White House, leading to calls for then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

In one photo, England dangles a cigarette from her half-cocked smile as she gives what became popularized as “doing the Lynndie” — a thumbs-up with her right hand and gesture with her left like a gun toward a row of naked detainees with hoods covering their heads.

“All the prisoners that were there were on that tier of high-priority. They were there for a reason. They had killed coalition forces or they were planning to,” England told The Daily over a hamburger at a Mexican restaurant near her home in Fort Ashby. “They had information about where insurgents were hiding.”

England and 10 fellow soldiers were slapped with dishonorable discharges and stints in a military brig. She was convicted of conspiracy, maltreating detainees and committing an indecent act in 2005 and served 521 days in a military prison.

England grew up in the backwaters of Appalachia and despite earning good marks in high school, she was hell-bent on escaping what she saw as a life destined to be behind the cash register of the local IGA supermarket. So she joined the Army.

Now 29, England is back in her parents’ home. She is virtually unemployable and haunted by her past. Charles Graner, her former lover and the ringleader of the Abu Ghraib abuses, refuses to acknowledge his 7-year-old son despite a 2009 paternity test proving he is the father


“Graner didn’t want anything to do with the baby,” England said.

The two met while stationed at Fort Lee in Virginia in 2003. She was a 20-year-old newlywed, he a divorced 34-year-old former Marine. England said she succumbed to Graner’s gregarious personality and charm. Their baby was conceived in Iraq, but all the while, Graner was two-timing England with a third Abu Ghraib specialist, Megan Ambuhl.

“You could say I did love Graner,” England said. “Now, I can’t stand the thought of him.”

The tumult of the last decade has left England visibly anguished. Gray strands have appeared in her long, dark hair.

The Army dishonorably discharged her last year, formally severing her surrogate family. She misses the routine of the service; the food, the uniform. She still wears her old camouflage gear while doing yard work.

“It just feels like the umbilical cord has been cut,” she said. “I could really go for an MRE right now,” she said of the Army’s meals ready to eat.

With no help or career counseling from Uncle Sam, England found herself with a radioactive name in a bleak job market in rural West Virginia. She tried to co-author a memoir with a local history author, but she claims he stole her story and published the book on his own. The only employment England can muster is seasonal secretarial work for a sympathetic accountant who has known her since she was a teen.

“I would put out applications everywhere. I can’t get McDonald’s, Burger King,” she said. “It’s the felony they can’t get past. I only get a job during tax season.”

With next to no work and her son at school, England has too much time to ruminate. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, but recently stopped taking antidepressants and seeing her therapist.

She barely sleeps, she said. England anguishes over the belief that the photos from Abu Ghraib could have caused American casualties.

“That’s something that falls on my head,” she said. “I think about it all the time — indirect deaths that were my fault. Losing people on our side because of me coming out on a picture.”

Images on television and sounds in the streets trigger memories of her time in Iraq — and in prison.

“Somebody dropped something off the [store] shelf and I freaked out,” she said. “It was two aisles down. They dropped something on the floor and made a big bang and I was like, ‘Ah!’ ”

England is paranoid. She believes people follow her at the grocery store, and she’s fearful someone will exact revenge. She’s tried to disguise herself and considered changing her name.

“You wonder why I’m always looking over my shoulder,” she said. “It could be 20 years down the road. People wait. They have patience.”

There are few things that give her respite. Legally barred from carrying a weapon, she can no longer join her father on hunts for squirrel, deer and turkey like she did before the war.

Now, England’s life centers around raising son Carter.

“I thought maybe I would meet some guy and then get married and he’ll adopt him and then he’ll be his daddy,” England said. “It’s gone on eight years now since I left Iraq, since I’ve really been out with a guy.”

She knows her life in Fort Ashby is a compromise — it’s very close to the one she tried to leave behind when she enrolled in the Army. Still, England said her role in the Abu Ghraib disaster has been redeemed because it gave her a son.

“If I say I regret getting with Graner then I say that I regret Carter. And I don’t,” she said. “I wouldn’t give up Carter for anything. And if going through that whole ordeal is what was supposed to happen to me to have Carter then that’s how some things are.”